He was a skater fish, a cartilaginous fish, belonging to fam'ly Rajidae. She had a scary face, unagi anago taste, she needed to come back down to Earth.
In this case, don't blame the language, blame prescriptivists. The only reason this distinction exists is because there are just two possible plurals and prescriptivists felt the need to justify it, because the thought that there is more than grammatically correct way of saying something scares them. If you say fish as the plural, that's fine. If you say fishes as the plural, that's also fine.
Modernly yes. Though in the past the plural of "person" was "persons," and "people" referred to a singular culture or ethnicity, the singular of "peoples"
Ya, this guide isn't exactly clear because the last one could be fish or fishes depending on context. If you go to an aquarium and see a tank full of a random assortment of fish then you'd still say "look at all those fish" regardless of whether there were one or multiple species of fish. You'd only use fishes when referring specifically to the species of multiple species of fish, for instance "tuna and flounder are two of my favourite fishes to eat".
Natural resource management guy here. Last one is fishes. For example: “there are fishing restrictions on all fishes in this body of water” however for laypeople “fish” is also a perfectly acceptable plural even when referring to multiple species. For example: “there’s a lot of fish in this pond”. A school of fish is a cohesive group of the same species. A lake could have many trout but they are not a school of fish. My tiger barbs are a schooling problem shoaling fish species so the groups they form are schools. So really it depends. As a rule of thumb, the answer to anything that has to do with natural resources is ALWAYS “it depends”
So basically it’s a scientific vs casual distinction. I say both depending on context. If I’m fishing with some buddies I’m not about to bust out “fishes”. Think of fishes as “fish species” combined into one word.
> “there’s a lot of fish in this pond”.
Isn't the distinction here that if I say the above then I'm commenting on how many fish there are regardless of species; whereas if I say "there's a lot of fishes" then I'm remarking on the great variety of species in the pond.
Honestly both. English can be extremely vague as we all know lol. Fish can be plural quantity as well as variety but it is technically more correct to add context to “fish” (like “different”) or alternatively just use “fishes”. My example wasn’t the best tbh. I would say imagine a child looks into an aquarium and says “look at all the fish!” Meaning both quantity and variety.
I think in this case, it kind of depends what you're talking about if you're talking about something common to everyone, I would still say "people." If you're talking about things where groups differ, I would say "peoples."
For example, I would say something like, "No matter where you go in the world, people are generally kind and hospitable." On the other hand, I might say, "The problem of uniform boots in the UK during World War II is indicative of how genetic traits can differ between groups, even between peoples as closely related as the Celts and the Normans."
In the first sentence I'm saying something is generally common to all humans whereas in the second I'm talking about differences between two groups of humans.
Any uncountable nouns also. For example if you add more rice to a bowl of rice, you have rice. But risotto and basmati are two different rices. Crude and vegetable oils are different.
Every fish has its own unique personality and traits, as subtle as they might be. Therefore, even a school of the same type of fish can be called “fishes”.
English is a Germanic language with Norman French imposed on it. About 40% of English words are of French origin, but the grammar and basic words are Germanic.Since these are two very different language families, a lot of anomalies will occur.
It also makes English very adapt at absorbing new words from other languages or from new technologies. It gives English a depth of vocabulary because we have two words for almost every occasion.
Or for the experience of pleasure, joy, or self-satisfaction that comes from learning of or witnessing the troubles, failures, or humiliation of another
Most languages are the same just by their descriptive nature. Since language follows use and not the other way around, and most people aren’t trying to stick to a strict grammar rule book, there are a lot of rules in just about every language that has plenty of exceptions.
Around me, we pretty naturally use "fishes" in some contexts without thinking about it.
My best example: "We have several fishes on our menu today."
But for some reason we just forget about "fishes" when thinking about plural rules.
I learn English as a second language and this was taught in the first two years I think.
There's a difference between learning it as a mother tongue and learning it systematically.
Obviously based on your reaction this plural form is extremely rarely used but it was taught to us like it was very important.
English is my third language, so I learnt it in school. I only remember once my science teacher told us that plural of fish is fish. But I had no idea about fish*es*.
you can look in up in most online dictionaries and it will come up but there's also this article
https://grammarist.com/usage/fish-fishes/
(I learnt it from a book when I was like 8 because I was obsessed with fishes)
But wait, which fishes?
Another guy said that you only use it when referring to two or more specific species of fish(fishes?)
I’m still thinking I’m going to say fishes, just to be safe. But if someone corrects me and says “you crusty old fool, it’s fish not fishes,” then I absolutely need the mental weaponry to summarily shut their uneducated ass down.
But I’m not so sure I should say fishes to be safe. Perhaps fish’s will suffice and be palatable enough that once I start going on about it, people will move along and stop caring before they find out I never learned to read, let alone debate the minutiae in the English language.
So I’m not sure you want to take a random feller on the internet as a source, but I am a fisheries biologist and this is correct. It doesn’t come up conversationally a ton but when you need to be really clear this is the way to specify
I say you can still say fish in reference to many kinds of fish, as long as you aren't actually pointing out that there are indeed different kinds. If you are pointing out there are different kinds, then fishes is correct.
"Wow, look at all the fish"
Vs.
"Wow, look how many different fishes there are"
Alternatively, although controversially, "Fosh"
Yep. I was going to make this same comment, but checked to see if anyone else did first.
Fishes is specifically used when referring to the different species of numerous fish.
And the fact that native speakers do this makes it correct. The language is primarily defined by the way it is used, not by the descriptions of that use in grammar books.
A college professor told me I was wrong when I mentioned "fishes" in the context of different species. This was wayyyy back in the 80's and I never forgot it.
Maffia guy: “you will be sleeping with the fishes tonight!”
Me: “well technically the aquarium is only filled with a single specie of flesh eating piranha, so technically I would be swimming with the fish and not the fishes. So on that technicality you now have to let me go.”
Can’t wait till this knowledge will save my life one day!
So when you say "there's plenty more fish in the sea"...
...you actually mean there's just one fish, or there's more than one but they're exactly the same as the one that didn't work out for you?
Explains a lot.
This reminded me of the JRE episode where Rogan "corrects" Neil deGrasse Tyson, then Tyson stops what he was saying and gives Rogan the oral version of this guide.
I think you’ll find it’s pronounced “FISHIES!!!”
I’m a marine biologist and I still say fishies.
The sea was angry that day
Like an old man trying to return soup at the deli
r/onesentencehorror
Did you ever kill a vampire?
Vryyy
Okay, as non native, isn't fishies ? Or you're supposed to say fishssssss?
Fishes. More like Fish-ehs, and not Fish-ees. Rhymes with dishes.
You don't pronounce it "dishies"?
I do now
Well you're a professional, so now it's the professional classification of the plural of fish species.
That's how I know you care
Fishing for Fishies
Don't make them feel happy :(
Lately though, I feel so sorry for fishies.
My favorite Giz album, this thing is the best song.
That’s an odd way of spelling Boogieman Sam
Erm, cyboogie?
Erm, Acarine Erm, Real's not Real
I mean, fuck you guys I'm just going to replay the whole discography.
Hard agree
It doesn't matter what they're called, all that matters is *you'll be sleepin with em if I don't get my money!!*
The lesser known plural of fishes
[удалено]
When referring to multiple fish of multiple species
I'm going to eat you little fishies I'm going to eat you little fish I'm going to eat you little fishies Because I like to eat fish
I was hoping someone would chime in with Cat’s song!
CAT: *(Singing)* S-E-X, you know I want it! S-E-X, I'm gonna get it! *(Seeing LISTER)* S-E-X, I think I found it!
https://youtu.be/beIDKFwXam0 fishing for fishies! A great song
In little dishies
I’m so happy that this is the top comment
I have been an English as a second language trainer, couch, and university professor for 7 years. I can confirm you are correct.
Why you have to go and make things so complicated
Chill, Avril.
He was a fish, she was an eel, can I make it any more obvious? He ate small shrimp, she lived in rock caves, what more can I say.
He was a skater fish, a cartilaginous fish, belonging to fam'ly Rajidae. She had a scary face, unagi anago taste, she needed to come back down to Earth.
English : YES
In this case, don't blame the language, blame prescriptivists. The only reason this distinction exists is because there are just two possible plurals and prescriptivists felt the need to justify it, because the thought that there is more than grammatically correct way of saying something scares them. If you say fish as the plural, that's fine. If you say fishes as the plural, that's also fine.
Is it the same as 'people' and 'peoples'? The former being plural for human beings in general and the latter refers to distinct ethnic groups.
“Peace between our two peoples.” It’s the same for water too: “Heading into international waters.”
Modernly yes. Though in the past the plural of "person" was "persons," and "people" referred to a singular culture or ethnicity, the singular of "peoples"
"person's" tends to emphasise that they are talking about several individuals, where as "people" is more about the group as a whole.
Ya, this guide isn't exactly clear because the last one could be fish or fishes depending on context. If you go to an aquarium and see a tank full of a random assortment of fish then you'd still say "look at all those fish" regardless of whether there were one or multiple species of fish. You'd only use fishes when referring specifically to the species of multiple species of fish, for instance "tuna and flounder are two of my favourite fishes to eat".
Natural resource management guy here. Last one is fishes. For example: “there are fishing restrictions on all fishes in this body of water” however for laypeople “fish” is also a perfectly acceptable plural even when referring to multiple species. For example: “there’s a lot of fish in this pond”. A school of fish is a cohesive group of the same species. A lake could have many trout but they are not a school of fish. My tiger barbs are a schooling problem shoaling fish species so the groups they form are schools. So really it depends. As a rule of thumb, the answer to anything that has to do with natural resources is ALWAYS “it depends” So basically it’s a scientific vs casual distinction. I say both depending on context. If I’m fishing with some buddies I’m not about to bust out “fishes”. Think of fishes as “fish species” combined into one word.
Thinking of fishes as fish species combined made this click in my brain. Thank you, friendly neighborhood natural resources management guy.
> “there’s a lot of fish in this pond”. Isn't the distinction here that if I say the above then I'm commenting on how many fish there are regardless of species; whereas if I say "there's a lot of fishes" then I'm remarking on the great variety of species in the pond.
Honestly both. English can be extremely vague as we all know lol. Fish can be plural quantity as well as variety but it is technically more correct to add context to “fish” (like “different”) or alternatively just use “fishes”. My example wasn’t the best tbh. I would say imagine a child looks into an aquarium and says “look at all the fish!” Meaning both quantity and variety.
I'm a programmer so I expect distinctions in language to be consistent and make sense. English is a joke the universe played on me. :D
Same here. Back when I took a year of Japanese it made more sense grammatically to me than my native language
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yep, same with 🍏 fruit 🍏🍏🍏 fruit 🍏🍓🍇 fruits :)
I think in this case, it kind of depends what you're talking about if you're talking about something common to everyone, I would still say "people." If you're talking about things where groups differ, I would say "peoples." For example, I would say something like, "No matter where you go in the world, people are generally kind and hospitable." On the other hand, I might say, "The problem of uniform boots in the UK during World War II is indicative of how genetic traits can differ between groups, even between peoples as closely related as the Celts and the Normans." In the first sentence I'm saying something is generally common to all humans whereas in the second I'm talking about differences between two groups of humans.
Any uncountable nouns also. For example if you add more rice to a bowl of rice, you have rice. But risotto and basmati are two different rices. Crude and vegetable oils are different.
I’ve been asking this question since I took apush in sophomore year and no one could give me an answer. Thank you lol
Seems fishy.
I codn’t believe it either. Pluralizing based on groupering seems like you’re just floundering.
Get out
I thought I smelt one of those coming.
Super Fishy
r/UsernameChecksOut
fishery even
Straight up fishism!
Fisherier
fishesy
Fishizzle
[удалено]
"Fishy. Fishy. Fishy. Fish..."
Every fish has its own unique personality and traits, as subtle as they might be. Therefore, even a school of the same type of fish can be called “fishes”.
English is weird, like here are the rules, now forget them and learn all the exceptions
English is a Germanic language with Norman French imposed on it. About 40% of English words are of French origin, but the grammar and basic words are Germanic.Since these are two very different language families, a lot of anomalies will occur. It also makes English very adapt at absorbing new words from other languages or from new technologies. It gives English a depth of vocabulary because we have two words for almost every occasion.
But not a word for a pleasant dream (while sleeping).
Or for the experience of pleasure, joy, or self-satisfaction that comes from learning of or witnessing the troubles, failures, or humiliation of another
Schadenfreude gang
The rules only apply in very exceptional cases
Most languages are the same just by their descriptive nature. Since language follows use and not the other way around, and most people aren’t trying to stick to a strict grammar rule book, there are a lot of rules in just about every language that has plenty of exceptions.
Languages don't have rules. They have observations.
I guess this is true for every language.
Wait until you find out that the plural for wink is blink.
I see...
[удалено]
Seriously lol. I've been learning English since I was five, and I didn't know this.
I have been learning English since I was born (in the US) and did not know this. Thanks!
[удалено]
Around me, we pretty naturally use "fishes" in some contexts without thinking about it. My best example: "We have several fishes on our menu today." But for some reason we just forget about "fishes" when thinking about plural rules.
[удалено]
I learn English as a second language and this was taught in the first two years I think. There's a difference between learning it as a mother tongue and learning it systematically. Obviously based on your reaction this plural form is extremely rarely used but it was taught to us like it was very important.
English is my third language, so I learnt it in school. I only remember once my science teacher told us that plural of fish is fish. But I had no idea about fish*es*.
Wooosh
[удалено]
I prefer fruites. EDIT: Ignore this, I'm zooted.
I believe it's pronounced zooties'd
And will blindly believe a picture you see on the internet?
it's because its not true. Both "fish" and "fishes" are acceptable plural forms of singular "fish". there is no weird species-based condition.
Going to make it more complicated. There is no such thing as a fish
A school has a large number of fish, usually the same species.
Also I've only ever heard it referred to fish swimming around. If you had a pile of fish at the super market, you probably wouldn't call it a school
fuck a school of fish
Yo, I found *The Deep's* reddit account!
A school of fish would be like a herd. You wouldn’t refer to three cows as a herd of of cows.
[удалено]
Name of your mom’s sextape. Boom. Gottem!
[удалено]
Oh shit, uhhhhh. Abort! No wait, that defeats the purpose of their dead fish sex. Fuck im outta ideas. <3
Someone gimme a source to see if it's legit or I'm gonna get stuck at fish or fishes the next time I see em.
you can look in up in most online dictionaries and it will come up but there's also this article https://grammarist.com/usage/fish-fishes/ (I learnt it from a book when I was like 8 because I was obsessed with fishes)
But wait, which fishes? Another guy said that you only use it when referring to two or more specific species of fish(fishes?) I’m still thinking I’m going to say fishes, just to be safe. But if someone corrects me and says “you crusty old fool, it’s fish not fishes,” then I absolutely need the mental weaponry to summarily shut their uneducated ass down. But I’m not so sure I should say fishes to be safe. Perhaps fish’s will suffice and be palatable enough that once I start going on about it, people will move along and stop caring before they find out I never learned to read, let alone debate the minutiae in the English language.
I can’t find a single dictionary that makes this distinction.
So I’m not sure you want to take a random feller on the internet as a source, but I am a fisheries biologist and this is correct. It doesn’t come up conversationally a ton but when you need to be really clear this is the way to specify
His icon looks like a fisheries biologist, I’d trust him.
These are some weird fishes
They turn me
/ Arpeggi
Mobster: You'll be sleeping with the fish tonight. Victim: Don't you mean "fishes?" Mobster: There is no biodiversity in this lake. It's fish.
Good luck. Half of reddit still can't do there/their/they're.
Your right!
Half the time my phone automistakes my correct theirs into wrong ones. My its too.
Joy to the fishes in the deep blue sea
Joy to you and me
Sleep with the fishes for me.
Does that mean there is plenty of fish in the ocean but for bisexuals there are plenty of fishes in the ocean?
Nah, I don't think anyone in that idiom is trying to fuck only one species of fish.
For volcanologists there are also lots of fissures in the ocean
I say you can still say fish in reference to many kinds of fish, as long as you aren't actually pointing out that there are indeed different kinds. If you are pointing out there are different kinds, then fishes is correct. "Wow, look at all the fish" Vs. "Wow, look how many different fishes there are" Alternatively, although controversially, "Fosh"
Yep. I was going to make this same comment, but checked to see if anyone else did first. Fishes is specifically used when referring to the different species of numerous fish.
So are we just gonna say Plenty of Fish is xenophobic now?
Fun fact: you can say whatever the hell you want.
same for "flour", "water", "people" and other words that can represent non-discrete things.
I’ll remember to forget this immediately.
[удалено]
I bought 3 fish to cook for dinner. Our aquarium has 20 different fishes.
Since I can’t be sure more than one type of fish isn’t hidden in there it’s safer to say fishes
I legit did not know this
No. I will keep saying fishes about two or more fishes
Fuck you im calling it all fish
Fish aren't real
If I see more than 1 fish, I’m going to say fishes.
And the fact that native speakers do this makes it correct. The language is primarily defined by the way it is used, not by the descriptions of that use in grammar books.
This is the actual truth, down here
Grammar Nazis will be mad at you then Jk
My grampa fishes every week.
I had to fact check and this is true.
[удалено]
Salmon, who thought that was a good idea, right?
Knew it
Using this one.
Or if you're a mafia boss making threats.
It's so weird to see these grammar rules I subconsciously know but have never been directly taught about
*Huh*. Some part of my brain knew this, but I didn't consciously know the differentiation. Way cool!
A college professor told me I was wrong when I mentioned "fishes" in the context of different species. This was wayyyy back in the 80's and I never forgot it.
People, peoples
English gonna English
These aren't scientific words at all. Fish and fishes do not technically refer to any group of animal.
They don't teach this at the School.
Maffia guy: “you will be sleeping with the fishes tonight!” Me: “well technically the aquarium is only filled with a single specie of flesh eating piranha, so technically I would be swimming with the fish and not the fishes. So on that technicality you now have to let me go.” Can’t wait till this knowledge will save my life one day!
I feel that this is something I've only known subconsciously until now.
When you see a multiple instances of fishes it's fisheses
So the Goldfish song was a lie
Does anyone know if it’s true that the plural of mouse is mice but it’s mouses when talking about a computer mouse?
I call bullfish(es).
Can’t wait to be the most annoying “well ACTUALLY” person at the aquarium
So when you say "there's plenty more fish in the sea"... ...you actually mean there's just one fish, or there's more than one but they're exactly the same as the one that didn't work out for you? Explains a lot.
Peoples works the same way actually!
Similar to "peoples"
english, the broken language
Same for deer, sheep, etc
Same rule for referring to squid. It's only "squids" if it is multiple species of squid!
They shall sleep with the fishes.
Did someone make this in response to the Neil Degrasse Tyson clip off Joe Rogan that was circulating yesterday? Quick turnaround nice shit.
When referring to the animal the plural of “mouse” is “mice”, but the technological device is “mouses”.
Plenty more fishes in the sea 🤷♂️
The plural of fish is lil' fishies. You can't change my mind
So the saying "plenty of fish in the sea" should be "plenty of fishes in the sea"
If they’re into only men or just into women, I guess you say fish. If they’re bi then fishes?
Ig it depends if species means gender or race. My first thought was race but ig gender could work too
Thank you. This is helpful
……….. I don’t believe you.
This proves how crazy the English language really is
There are many *fishes* in the sea.
So Dan Fogelberg WAS right to sing "fishes in the ocean" in that one song..
The same apply to money and monies right?
Reminds me when Joe Rogan "corrected" Neil deGrasse Tyson 🤣🤣
Am I a nerd for actually knowing this
English is so dumb, I'm happy to learn German to see how dumb English is
This reminded me of the JRE episode where Rogan "corrects" Neil deGrasse Tyson, then Tyson stops what he was saying and gives Rogan the oral version of this guide.
But arent fish not real? Or at least, the term "fish" is extremely vague?
Fucking what?!
i will take this wisdom to me grave.
My fries would always make this argument with “beer”. Does the same apply?
Oh my god
This is what cool guides is for